[Bug c++/80059] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid noexcept for __transaction_atomic

2017-03-21 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059 --- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek --- Ok, fixed.

[Bug c++/80059] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid noexcept for __transaction_atomic

2017-03-20 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059 --- Comment #11 from Volker Reichelt --- Hi Marek, thanks for the fix! However, the ChangeLog entry is wrong. In the final version you didn't call instantiate_non_dependent_expr_sfinae, but instantiate_non_dependent_expr instead. Would you

[Bug c++/80059] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid noexcept for __transaction_atomic

2017-03-20 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059 --- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Mon Mar 20 15:02:09 2017 New Revision: 246279 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246279=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/80059 - ICE with noexcept and __transaction_atomic *

[Bug c++/80059] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid noexcept for __transaction_atomic

2017-03-20 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/80059] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid noexcept for __transaction_atomic

2017-03-17 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059 --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- Right, I think that's best. I'm testing it. Thanks!

[Bug c++/80059] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid noexcept for __transaction_atomic

2017-03-17 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059 --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini --- Yes. Judging by the comment before fold_non_dependent_expr (which I wrote myself ;) it seems we could use instantiate_non_dependent_expr_sfinae (cond, tf_none) instead?

[Bug c++/80059] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid noexcept for __transaction_atomic

2017-03-17 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Actually, it seems weird to call cxx_constant_value after fold_non_dependent_expr has called maybe_constant_value. :/

[Bug c++/80059] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid noexcept for __transaction_atomic

2017-03-17 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/80059] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid noexcept for __transaction_atomic

2017-03-17 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---

[Bug c++/80059] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid noexcept for __transaction_atomic

2017-03-16 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Ah, no, that's wrong.

[Bug c++/80059] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid noexcept for __transaction_atomic

2017-03-16 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- This seems to fix it: --- a/gcc/cp/except.c +++ b/gcc/cp/except.c @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ build_must_not_throw_expr (tree body, tree cond) cond = perform_implicit_conversion_flags (boolean_type_node,

[Bug c++/80059] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid noexcept for __transaction_atomic

2017-03-16 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/80059] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid noexcept for __transaction_atomic

2017-03-16 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80059 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Target Milestone|---